Dashrath Singh vs State of Jharkhand

Heard, learned Senior counsel, Mr. A. K. Kashyap assisted by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anurag Kashyap and learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Anup Pawan Topno.

It appears that this is the 3 rd attempt by the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Tarhasi P.S. Case No.30 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.925 of 2018 (S.T. No.261/19) registered under Sections 302/34 I.P.C.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected on 15.03.2019 passed in B.A. No.10191 of 2018 and subsequently on 06.12.2019 passed in B.A. No.9942 of 2019 with a direction to the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial and issue process for examination of the witnesses and conclude the trial preferably within a period of one year.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that more than one year has already elapsed from 06.12.2019 and till date out of ten witnesses, only three witnesses have been examined.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that co-accused, Budhu Singh has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 16.12.2020 passed by Co-ordinate Bench in B.A. No.7701 of 2020, as such, petitioner may also be enlarged on bail considering his period of custody i.e. from 24.09.2018 and the charge has been framed on 20.09.2019.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that last witnesse has been examined in this case on 09.01.2020 and thereafter no witness has been examined in this case.

Learned counsel for the State, while opposing the prayer for bail has submitted that as per First Information Report lodged by Manju Devi, her husband (Dwarika Manjhi) was taken by this petitioner forcefully in which name of Dasrath Singh, Manoj Singh, Raja Singh, Sudhir Singh and Budhu Singh has been taken by the informant. Apart from that this petitioner being a Police constable has committed such act just to pressurize the informant as son of this petitioner, Budhu Singh and Sudhir Singh are accused in a case under Section 376 I.P.C., as such, petitioner may not be enlarged on bail, as even after best effort of the trial court, trial of this case could not be completed within one year as the court was physically locked down from 23.03.2020 till date, as such, the condition may be considered to be one year after the physical court starts.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and considering seriousness of the allegation against the petitioner (who is a constable), whose son was initially accused in a case under Section 376 I.P.C. and thereafter they started putting pressure upon the informant's family for compromise. When the informant's family denied, then they took away the husband of the informant and after committing his murder, hanged the deadbody in a window of High School of the village, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected.

However, Director Prosecution, Government of Jharkhand is directed to look into the matter so as to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of nine months from the date of the physical court starts.

Let a copy of this order be communicated through FAX to the Director Prosecution, Government of Jharkhand, at once.